Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: 90GB table on Windows 2000
Correct,
There were no problems due to 'simple volume'; but there were various 'mechanical' constraints on data arrival, and query requirements that added some interesting implementation details - which then ran into a seemingly endless stream of 'interesting' side-effects. In short, most of the problems were arguably bugs - mostly fixed in newer versions.
-- Regards Jonathan Lewis http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk Next Seminar dates: (see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html ) ____USA__________November 7/9 (Detroit) ____USA__________November 19/21 (Dallas) ____England______November 12/14 The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html Pablo Sanchez wrote in message ...Received on Wed Oct 30 2002 - 13:34:24 CST
>"Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:app48s$mhr$1
>$8302bc10_at_news.demon.co.uk:
>
>>
>> Correction - 32GB per week.
>
>Was that 32GB/week - per 24 hours, per seven days a week? Doesn't
>sound like all that much ...
>
>32G/wk * wk/7 days * 1 day/24h * 1h/60m * 1024M/G
>
> = 3.25MB/minute
>
>This makes me 'guess' that the issues were not related to hardware
>performance ... business issues? Bugs?
>--
>Pablo Sanchez, High-Performance Database Engineering
>http://www.hpdbe.com